W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

response body (was: Re: Comments on VERSION-CONTROL)

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:33:04 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569EA.003F7513.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


>>   Secondly, I agree that there are a number of
>>   places where the marshaling is underspecified
>>   with respect to (usually) error conditions
>>   (though in this case it is a 200 OK response).
>>   For example, in REPORT "the response body MUST
>>   contain the requested report" and "The
>>   DAV:version-tree REPORT response body MUST be
>>   a DAV:multistatus XML element."
>
> I didn't quite follow your point here Tim ... could you restate
> or clarify?

Simply that when, say DAV:version-tree REPORT is in error, it returns an
extended status element body (contrary to "The DAV:version-tree REPORT
response body MUST be a DAV:multistatus XML element.")

Tim
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 06:33:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT